Featured Artifical Intelligence Translation?

If you really don't understand a point, then ask for clarification rather than saying the point is false. But doubling down by saying, “OTOH, your claim # 1 is obviously false,” while admitting a serious lack of understanding really takes the cake.

I did not say anything about "human hands" in that point, and given the definitions of inhuman and its context in point one, etc., that is about as unreasonable an interpretation as could be imagined. Similar for unknowing and unaware.

While you “did not claim AI would remain unaware,” the fact is that it will always be unaware. It cannot be otherwise. It is merely machine software.

Associating human attributes to AI is the problem that my point one addresses.

AI doesn't and can’t know anything. AI isn't and can’t be aware of anything. It has no consciousness at all and never will. AI is itself never going to be human. It is software.

Being fed data, being programmed, etc., does not mean the machine software actually has any awareness at all, knows or understands anything at all. It is just machine software. It cannot think, cannot reason, cannot comprehend. It cannot ponder or appreciate its solutions. Everything about it that attempts to mimic such human functions is completely artificial. These limits are known and obvious.

 

Your posts demonstrate no such understanding. A full stop would be highly recommended at this point. Ah, if only.

So, what shall we say then? These posts of yours are prime examples of why your posts should not be considered useful for guiding or informing anyone about translating, interpreting, etc., the stopped clock effect not withstanding.

 

Well, admittedly, AI could actually excel at that latter approach.

 

LOL. Equating "your posts" to "you" is on you. And telling me that I don’t know something is addressing me. Van said: “You do not know the limits of AI.” Talk about fallacious argumentation “against the man,” this crops up not infrequently in your posts.

There is an obvious ploy in your posts here designed to avoid addressing the limits of AI that are known and obvious by saying no one knows all of the limits of AI, which was never my point. The truth is that certain limits, very important limits, are known and are obvious to humans who bother to think about it, something AI cannot do.

Your posts avoided addressing the point made a few back, instead expressing admitted ignorance while yet claiming understanding that they obviously lack, and ignoring explanation which has been amply provided. To put it mildly, the maturity and insight expressed in your posts, as well as their resultant usefulness, cannot be underestimated.

 

Back to the OP and thread title:

AI is seriously limited by the fact that it will always be machine software, which can never function as aware of what it is doing, never actually know anything, but can only imitate human intelligence. Thus it is called Artificial Intelligence. This is an obvious and known limit of AI.

And that is a major reason why AI cannot handle translation and interpreting as a human expert can. In general, AI can never know how well it expresses communication or analyzes communication. AI will never understand human communication. For better or worse, AI can never be more than a tool for humans.

AI is machine software. AI does not have and will never have mind, will, or emotion. AI cannot think, cannot feel, cannot have its own direction. Thinking humans will not only see that this is so, but need to keep this in mind, so that they don’t attribute to the machine software what it is incapable of.

 

That is true.

 

I've left this thread because of Van's insults. I will not get involved in an insult exchange. But Van referred to me here so I'll briefly note: I linked to a site which talks about AI being a tool for translation. However, Van's OP supposed that AI would not be just a tool, but would replace those of us who teach Greek--his term was "obsolete". And he intimated that Bible translation could be carried on solely by AI, thus replacing the Bible translator. Here's what he said:

Okay, I've made my point. Carry on. I certainly will carry on teaching and translating--and mentoring as a teacher and translator, a point that Van never addressed and something AI can never do.